Evangelist or Charlatan of Democracy?
KTEMOC KONSIDERS
Terence Netto penned The link between Anwar and Dickens for Malaysiakini, in which he draws parallel between Charles Dickens and Anwar Ibrahim. Netto claimed Dickens to be the supreme artist of democracy and Anwar Ibrahim as the Pied Piper in the modern age of government by consent of the governed.
While I agree with Netto that Anwar is certainly the Pied Piper, my impression of the Pied Piper is not the version Netto has in mind. My Pied Piper is the original one in Hamelin, whom the Germans call Rattenfänger von Hameln.
The original story of Rattenfänger von Hameln was one of horror, but the tale was subsequently converted into one which had rats and whatnot. In the original tale, the Pied Piper hypnotized and led many many children to their deaths. No, I don’t suppose Netto had this impression of Anwar in mind wakakaka.
Au contraire, whenever Terence writes, you can be sure of two things: apart from requiring a dictionary, he’d be promoting Anwar Ibrahim.
Nothing wrong in the latter as we all promote someone we like (like kaytee does for Karpal Singh wakakaka) or attack someone we dislike (like kaytee does on Anwar Ibrahim wakakaka).
But Terence Netto exceeded the bounds of rational belief. This was what he said of Anwar:
You only have to give him a pedestal and this evangelist for democracy will use it to espouse the themes of freedom and equality with an ardor that is comparable to the ferocity Dickens displayed in attacking their lack in English institutions of the 19th century …
Evangelist for democracy?
Apart from a wrong choice of word in ‘evangelist’ (which those religious hounds might exploit to Anwar’s disadvantage) I have only three words, all starting with ‘P’, to describe Netto’s adulation of Anwar Ibrahim as a paragon of democracy, namely:
Poppycock, preposterous & pordah.
Evangelist for democracy? Wakakaka!
And dear Terence, what democratic message did your Anwar Ibrahim send to us when he attempted to seize government with his shameless 916 tomfoolery?
But Netto has been correct in describing Anwar as a Pied Piper because one of those mathematically challenged ‘children’ wakakaka was (to my great sadness as a DAP supporter) DAP Hannah Yeoh, such was/is Anwar’s mesmerizing mist of malarkey.
Then what about his welcoming the revolving-door frog, Nasarudin Hashim, ADUN for Bota in Perak to PKR. The Great One claimed the Nasaruddin’s defection “… reflected the sentiments of his voters, namely the Malays in his constituency … as the beginning of a new wave.”
Nothing about the non-Malays in Bota?
While on the ‘beginning of the new wave’ from Bota, would Anwar Ibrahim allow that the defection of erstwhile PKR Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Osman Jailu also “… reflected the sentiments of their voters, namely the Malays in their constituencies … as the beginning of a new wave”?
Would the PKR anwaristas agree? Of course not, those mindless moronic Myrmidon would blame Najib for his evil machinations, and I would agree to that, but of course when it’s that evangelist of democracy enticing frogs the other way, it’s only another step forward in man-man-lai democracy wakakaka.
Netto is no better in that he even provided an excuse for his evangelist of democracy for withdrawing from a conference in New Delhi because Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verse (and thus fatwa-ed to death by Iranian ayatollahs) was there.
An evangelist of democracy? Wakakaka, I still can’t believe Netto would describe Anwar as one after the 916 attempted subversion of the ballot box, and I haven’t even included the Great One’s duplicity in the 1994 Sabah election frogology and the parlous state of affair in his own party election process.
Maybe I’ll add another ‘P’ to the 3 above (Poppycock, preposterous & pordah) to describe Netto’s promotion of Anwar – pukish.
Now, we come to the Great One’s cowardice in refusing to participate with RPK in the WikiLeaks forum while in the same breath demanding Najib fronts up. The typical comments from those moronic mindless Myrmidons would be: ‘Who’s RPK to demand a debate with Anwar’, ‘RPK is a nobody, so why should Anwar debate with him’ etc, …
… and today Netto has come up with another article to defend Anwar in Malaysiakini’s Anwar shouldn’t debate Najib by proxy, says PKR where he quoted PKR vice-president N Surendran accusing Najib of using RPK as a proxy to debate Anwar.
I want to make two points very clear to imbeciles [please exucse my rudeness as I’m exasperated by sheer stupidity].
Firstly, it’s not a debate. The topic is not, for example, ‘Malaysia’s economic future’ or such likes which would then be appropriate in a Najib-Anwar debate.
It’s just a WikiLeaks forum where Julian Assange would interview participants. Surely, no one is going to argue that Julian Asaange will be debating with Anwar? So why is Anwar so shit scared of RPK being present?
